Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Liberals & The Constitution

Last weekend, Yale's chapter of the American Constitutional Society sponsored a conference at Yale Law School titled "The Constitution in 2020." The stated purpose of the conference, at which some of America's best-known liberal law professors appeared, was to work toward a "progressive" consensus as to what the Constitution should provide for by the year 2020, and a strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

To ensure progress, the democratic process must be bypassed altogether:

The left makes no secret of its intentions where the Constitution is concerned. It wants to change it, in ways that have nothing to do with what the document actually says. It wants the Constitution to enshrine its own policy preferences--thus freeing it from the tiresome necessity of winning elections. And how will the Constitution be changed? Through a constitutional convention, or a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures? Of course not. The whole problem, from the liberal perspective, is that they can't get democratically elected bodies to enact their agenda. As one of the Yale conference participants said: "We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts--where else do we turn?" The new, improved Constitution will come about through judicial re-interpretation. It only awaits, perhaps, the election of the next Democratic president.

The utter contempt displayed for the deomcratic process is truly frightening. The progressive agenda is to be implemented via judicial fiat. The Left now openly views the Constitution as an impediment to their agenda, which only serves to strengthen my point concerning the urgency of judicial reform.

Bill C:

Bookworm read my mind in her comment in John O's post on Judicial Reform:

Excellent point. The problem with judicial activism is, once you decide that the Constitution can be subject to Derida-like deconstructionism, you're left with nothing. Scary thought and the beginning of anarchy.

Since words have multiple meanings, which are usually defined as to what the interpreter desires, then what is the purpose of precedent? The democratic process allows a society to progress along a path which it finds in keeping with its traditions. Democracy has not been popular with conservatives in the past but history has shown representative democracy is a conservative form of government which is, nonetheless, flexible enough to allow change. Bookworm is right to say that this is the beginning of anarchy. Americans will not tolerate being ruled by elites whose opinions run counter to the majority. I believe that conservatives will enjoy electoral success for a long time to come as long as leftists try to subvert democratic institutions in order to enact their agenda.